WillyNilly, as a churchgoer, I don't think it's inherently rude to want to take pictures in front of a beautiful or unique church. Not any more than it would be to take pictures in front of a court building or city hall. Basically, I'd say the rule is that you have to be conscious of not disrupting whatever is going on inside while you're taking pictures. Don't be loud, don't block doorways, and don't hang around forever.

Logged

William wondered why he always disliked people who said "no offense meant." Maybe it was because they found it easier to say "no offense meant" than actually to refrain from giving offense.

Sophia, if you are going to explain the position, please explain it to the question I am asking.

I am asking if they are not being disruptive why is it rude. Yes I get it. If someone paid for the time - or heck even if they just reserved it for free - its rude. That's beyond obvious. But that's not in the least bit what I'm inquiring about.

I'm asking if they aren't disruptive such as in the OP after the other wedding was over and the happy couple and their friends and family were leaving why is it rude to use the church as a backdrop? Yes if someone has the space reserved - for money or not - they get the space. I get that. Or if services are going on, its disruptive. Of if they are trampling the landscaping, or taking up parking spaces from guests or worshipers. Really, really, really I do.

But if its early morning or late afternoon one day and there are no services or weddings, or rehearsals going on - why is that "rude" or "just wrong" or "tacky"? Those are all words several posters have thrown out there in this thread. Even in the OP the groom seemed put off these people were returning to use the church as the wedding was leaving and no longer using the church. That's my question. Not why is it rude to be disruptive or intrude upon people who have space reserved - I know the answer to that question. Its not the specifics that I'm asking about, its the general - why is it a blanket statement rude to use a random pretty church as a photo backdrop?

Is it because its a church? If it was a beautiful weeping willow tree, or a full bloom cherry blossom tree in a park would it be rude/tacky/wrong to stop and take photos there even if the couple didn't marry in the park? Even if the park required permits for weddings (but they weren't having their wedding there, they were just taking some photos)? If it was a family on vacation driving through the town and the church wasn't being used at the moment, would it rude for them to get out their car and pose for a picture in front of it? Is it ok when its people in regular clothes versus wedding finery?

OK, I will try again. Churches are private property. Period. There is public property and private property. They are not owned by the government, therefore it is private property. Whether or not they pay taxes has no impact.

When you ask:

Quote

I am asking if they are not being disruptive why is it rude.

You might as well as ask: If they are not being disruptive why is it rude to use someone else's front porch?

Even if the people with the pretty front porch are very welcoming and often have parties. Even if these parties generally welcome everyone in the neighborhood. It is still rude. It is inherently rude. It is using something that belongs to someone else.

As long as the weddin party doesn't use any of the property of the church but stays on public sidewalk or space and is respectful of events occuring at the church, then I don't think you can call it rude. But I do find it tacky and very strange.

To me, I think it is tacky to take Wedding photos in front of a church where you didn't get married because it seems to imply that you did have your wedding there. I can't think of any reason why you'd want to have wedding photos taken in front of a specific church other than to imply that your wedding occured at that location. I would think a city would have just as many other beautiful locations that could serve as a backdrop that wouldn't present the same implication.

And trying to portray something that did not occur is tacky.

To me it would be like photo shopping the Archbishop of Canterburry into your photo to make it look like that is who performed the ceremony.

Sophia, if you are going to explain the position, please explain it to the question I am asking.

I am asking if they are not being disruptive why is it rude. Yes I get it. If someone paid for the time - or heck even if they just reserved it for free - its rude. That's beyond obvious. But that's not in the least bit what I'm inquiring about.

I'm asking if they aren't disruptive such as in the OP after the other wedding was over and the happy couple and their friends and family were leaving why is it rude to use the church as a backdrop? Yes if someone has the space reserved - for money or not - they get the space. I get that. Or if services are going on, its disruptive. Of if they are trampling the landscaping, or taking up parking spaces from guests or worshipers. Really, really, really I do.

But if its early morning or late afternoon one day and there are no services or weddings, or rehearsals going on - why is that "rude" or "just wrong" or "tacky"? Those are all words several posters have thrown out there in this thread. Even in the OP the groom seemed put off these people were returning to use the church as the wedding was leaving and no longer using the church. That's my question. Not why is it rude to be disruptive or intrude upon people who have space reserved - I know the answer to that question. Its not the specifics that I'm asking about, its the general - why is it a blanket statement rude to use a random pretty church as a photo backdrop?

Is it because its a church? If it was a beautiful weeping willow tree, or a full bloom cherry blossom tree in a park would it be rude/tacky/wrong to stop and take photos there even if the couple didn't marry in the park? Even if the park required permits for weddings (but they weren't having their wedding there, they were just taking some photos)? If it was a family on vacation driving through the town and the church wasn't being used at the moment, would it rude for them to get out their car and pose for a picture in front of it? Is it ok when its people in regular clothes versus wedding finery?

OK, I will try again. Churches are private property. Period. There is public property and private property. They are not owned by the government, therefore it is private property. Whether or not they pay taxes has no impact.

When you ask:

Quote

I am asking if they are not being disruptive why is it rude.

You might as well as ask: If they are not being disruptive why is it rude to use someone else's front porch?

Even if the people with the pretty front porch are very welcoming and often have parties. Even if these parties generally welcome everyone in the neighborhood. It is still rude. It is inherently rude. It is using something that belongs to someone else.

I really think this would only matter if people were on the property, if they are not being disruptive and taking pictures on a public sidewalk in front of a church it's not really rude.

This would be on church property. I don't think anyone said that taking pictures on the sidewalk in front of church is rude. I guess unless you interfere with sidewalk traffic. But, that is a different thing.

This would be on church property. I don't think anyone said that taking pictures on the sidewalk in front of church is rude. I guess unless you interfere with sidewalk traffic. But, that is a different thing.

Okay, I think I get it now. To me "in front of" doesn't mean necessarily on the property. I was talking about being on a public sidewalk or right of way. I think you should get permission before using someone else's property.

I'm also confused by this. Like WillyNilly, I understand that OF COURSE it is wrong to be disruptive.

However, if these churches allow non-disruptive groups of tourists onto their property, and allow them to take photos, then I fail to understand how those tourists being in fancy clothes makes a difference.

For example: my garden is my private property. Imagine that I have a beautiful, much admired garden, with a lovely summerhouse and gorgeous flowers. I can absolutely say that nobody is allowed in it unless I give them my express permission.

However, if I let anybody wander in, and let them enjoy my garden, and pose for pictures (as long as they are respectful), I think it would be very odd of me to say, "Well, Jim and Jane can come in, because they're wearing shorts and t-shirts, but Sam and Sue, I see you're wearing a tux and a ballgown, so take a hike."

Now, if Fred and Fiona have already reserved my garden, then things would be different. But if it's a regular 'come one, come all' kind of day, then picking and choosing who can come in based solely on whether or not they are in wedding wear just seems ungenerous.

I'm also confused by this. Like WillyNilly, I understand that OF COURSE it is wrong to be disruptive.

However, if these churches allow non-disruptive groups of tourists onto their property, and allow them to take photos, then I fail to understand how those tourists being in fancy clothes makes a difference.

For example: my garden is my private property. Imagine that I have a beautiful, much admired garden, with a lovely summerhouse and gorgeous flowers. I can absolutely say that nobody is allowed in it unless I give them my express permission.

However, if I let anybody wander in, and let them enjoy my garden, and pose for pictures (as long as they are respectful), I think it would be very odd of me to say, "Well, Jim and Jane can come in, because they're wearing shorts and t-shirts, but Sam and Sue, I see you're wearing a tux and a ballgown, so take a hike."

Now, if Fred and Fiona have already reserved my garden, then things would be different. But if it's a regular 'come one, come all' kind of day, then picking and choosing who can come in based solely on whether or not they are in wedding wear just seems ungenerous.

I'm also trying to decide why a wedding party seems off when general tourists don't. This is what occurred to me when I read your post Teenyweeny. Jim and Jane in their shorts are probably going to snap a quick picture or two and go on their way. Sam and Sue, in their wedding finery, are probably going to take several pictures over a longer time. They're going to be staging and posing. Basically wedding pictures are a lot more structured and consuming that a snapshot or two.

Logged

In the United States today, there is a pervasive tendency to treat children as adults, and adults as children. The options of children are thus steadily expanded, while those of adults are progressively constricted. The result is unruly children and childish adults. ~Thomas Szasz

I'm also confused by this. Like WillyNilly, I understand that OF COURSE it is wrong to be disruptive.

However, if these churches allow non-disruptive groups of tourists onto their property, and allow them to take photos, then I fail to understand how those tourists being in fancy clothes makes a difference.

For example: my garden is my private property. Imagine that I have a beautiful, much admired garden, with a lovely summerhouse and gorgeous flowers. I can absolutely say that nobody is allowed in it unless I give them my express permission.

However, if I let anybody wander in, and let them enjoy my garden, and pose for pictures (as long as they are respectful), I think it would be very odd of me to say, "Well, Jim and Jane can come in, because they're wearing shorts and t-shirts, but Sam and Sue, I see you're wearing a tux and a ballgown, so take a hike."

Now, if Fred and Fiona have already reserved my garden, then things would be different. But if it's a regular 'come one, come all' kind of day, then picking and choosing who can come in based solely on whether or not they are in wedding wear just seems ungenerous.

I'm also trying to decide why a wedding party seems off when general tourists don't. This is what occurred to me when I read your post Teenyweeny. Jim and Jane in their shorts are probably going to snap a quick picture or two and go on their way. Sam and Sue, in their wedding finery, are probably going to take several pictures over a longer time. They're going to be staging and posing. Basically wedding pictures are a lot more structured and consuming that a snapshot or two.

I thought of that too, but if their posing and staging is not disruptive, then why does it matter? If I spend three hours taking arty shots of my friends in a churchyard, just for fun, and it disturbs nobody, then where's the harm?

If the friends are actually a wedding party, and the photographer is a pro, then how does that change matters?

Of course, if the church has a broader 'no photoshoots' policy, that would include arty shoots, model shoots etc, then that's their right. But it would have nothing to do with whether or not the party in question was a wedding party.

My problem is the reduction of a house of worship to a pretty backdrop. I find that offensive.

Logged

Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bow lines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover. -Mark Twain

My problem is the reduction of a house of worship to a pretty backdrop. I find that offensive.

It's something like that for me too. I mean there are some lovely churches in this town, some of them not of denominations I belong to, but I really enjoy the architecture and I take pictures of them just cause I think they're pretty. Just like I like to take pictures of some of the neat Victorian homes in town.

But, that said, I see this situation in the OP as not being too different from someone wanting to have their wedding in a very ornate and lovely church simply for the scenery, when they don't believe in that church's teachings. I think it's one thing to take pictures as a tourist if you're not disruptive because sometimes churches are part of the history of a town. Like Notre Dame. But to use it as a backdrop for a wedding like you got married there when you wouldn't go there normally...I dunno. It bugs me because that seems disrespectful.

Especially in this case where someone who does belong to that church was getting married there and thus had dibs, if you will, and this other group was content to keep them from doing so until they got kicked off. Then had the cajones to return.

Logged

Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars. You have a right to be here. Be cheerful, strive to be happy. -Desiderata

This is an incredibly honest question. If it is out of line, please let me know. I'm asking because I'm trying to understand; I'm atheist, so some religious things just don't make sense to me because I haven't belonged to that culture since I was a child.

Why are/were some churches made so ornately, then, if they weren't meant to be pretty? What is the purpose of making them look that way if they aren't to be admired? Why not make them look like any other building of the time?

This is an incredibly honest question. If it is out of line, please let me know. I'm asking because I'm trying to understand; I'm atheist, so some religious things just don't make sense to me because I haven't belonged to that culture since I was a child.

Why are/were some churches made so ornately, then, if they weren't meant to be pretty? What is the purpose of making them look that way if they aren't to be admired? Why not make them look like any other building of the time?

I'll only speak to Catholic and Lutheran, since those are the denominations with which I'm most familiar.

For Catholic churches, the church is where the Host, the literal body and blood of Jesus, resides. I can see why someone would want to heavily adorn the place where God is literally present.

Lutheran churches aren't quite so heavily adorned, mostly because Luther felt that such finery was unnecessary - he banned all statues of saints from Lutheran churches, he decreed pastors should not wear heavily colored clothing, but simple black robes, and so on. For Luther, it was all about cutting out everything he deemed unnecessary, and getting back to the heart of what worship was about.

Logged

"It takes a great deal of courage to stand up to your enemies, but even more to stand up to your friends" - Harry Potter

My problem is the reduction of a house of worship to a pretty backdrop. I find that offensive.

That's your prerogative, but it doesn't make it rude. Plenty of things offend me, without them being rude. It's not always the same thing.

I don't believe in organised religion, so to me a house of worship might be interesting, or pretty, but it's not holy to me. Of course, I always behave respectfully when I visit them, and obey any rules (like covering my head, or dressing modestly), but if those rules permit photography then you can bet I'll take photos, if the place is pretty. And if those photos happen to be of a large group of people, all in their best clothes...well, if it's not disruptive, and the location permits photos, then I don't see the harm.

I'm in the camp that feels it is not inherently tude, or tacky, to want to have photographs in front of a church or other building, just becuase it isn't where you had yourwedding.

I agree absolutely that the party in the original submission were very rue, because they were disruptive and were in the way of the wedding party which was actually usign the church and it's facilities.

I think there are lots of reasons why you might decide to have your pictures in front of a church other than to pretent or imply that you got married there - it may well be more attractive than other options in a city there might be other nice buildings, there might not. Thinking of my hme town, I can't think of anywhere at present - the buildings which are council offices are currently covered inscaffolding, the old town hall is usually covered in banners advertising upcoming events, most of the other nice looking buildings are offices and shops where taking photos would be disruptive (and where the photos would be full of corporate logos)

I don't think it is disresectful to take pictures, any more than it is inherently disrespectful for a tourist to take pictures of, or inside Westminster Abbey or the Blue Mosque. I think it *is* disrespectful if you are disruptive, if you take photographs after being asked not to do so, or in breach of posted signs, of you or your party are causing a nuisance to, or interfering with, the ordinary use of the building.

I agree with TeenyWeeny that the fact taht you (generic you, not anyone specific here) might feel it is disrespectful or ofensive doesn't mean that it is rude.

I used to live in a cathedral city. The registry office was very close to the cathedral and it was very common for eople who had just got married at the registry office to then take photos on the cathedral green, stading in front of the doors etc. I never heard of anyon suggesting it was offensive or inappropriate.

(I have to say, even if the motive is to let people think you got married in a/that church, I am not convinced that is necessarily rude. Weird, yes, but not necessarily rude.